Menu

One graph that ends the climate change debate

Bonus 1 Page 5

There are two kinds of hard science; corporeal science and recondite science. Corporeal science produces iPhones using science that says, “since-this, then-that”. Things can actually be done with corporeal science, and you know if the science is right by whether they work or not. Recondite science plays with ideas and theoreticals about things that are beyond our ability to directly touch and use, like quantum mechanics which describes the macro details of how the universe works on a micro level. It uses an “if-this, then-that” scenario. However, for a “science” to be considered a legitimate recondite science, all of the significant “ifs” must be taken into account. And this is VERY important: No scientific theory is legitimate without confirming observations. When it comes to “climate change” the global temperature data is the most important of all observations.

Global warming theory falls into neither of the two science categories. It is a pseudo-science (unscience) without a home. It would be recondite science, except, as we have seen, it does not take into account all of the significant “ifs” (not even close). The only real things that are hard science about it are snapshot observations of the past and relatively recent real-time measurements (the temperature observations that show no net warming for the last 25 years or 73 of the last 84 years inclusive). But the mechanisms of how the climate works are hardly understood the way an iPhone can be designed, manufactured and enjoyed. And it cannot be calculated and experimented on like gravity.

The climate and its influences can be observed in some detail on a macro level, but only for a very small portion of time. The further back in history one goes the more obscure the information on a micro level. But by definition, the climate can really only be understood on a macro level over very long periods of time, so we are hamstrung by our inability to measure the climate and all of the possible influences over the long length of time needed to actually understand them. Even on a micro level in the short term, at the state of mankind’s scientific abilities today, it is like a caveman trying to understand quantum mechanics. We are still grappling with consistently predicting the weather for a single city a week out, no matter for the whole global climate a century out.

Question: Do you still think that the climate change movement is based on hard science?